In a sane society, the truth about a dangerous, indolent, low-IQ, criminal welfare parasite like the one featured in this article would be described by a nation's newspaper of record with a degree of honesty that would have redeeming value for society at large : namely as a net drain on the community, the type of individual whose very existence should be discouraged for the greater common good.

Instead, in a pitiful fit of status posturing, the New York Times lionizes such creatures to prove their anti-racist bona fides. How does such posturing benefit anyone except the Times' own self-important sense of moral superiority?

Answer: it doesn't.

What this means is that the elitist weasels at Amerika's newspaper of record are fully committed to buffing the halo (that they think shines) atop their pointy heads, at the expense of subway-riding non-New York Times elites everywhere.

From the article :

Of course, the ravaging reality reversers of 42nd Street disguise the utterly sinister reality of this creature's existence in a too-cool-for-you layer of snide smugness, as though if you can't handle the ideal of a violent ex-con crack hustler harassing people on the subway for change, then, well, you just can't belong to the Times' club.

And it gets worse:

The Times is really rubbing it in your face here, almost like they're daring you to be outraged, and prove that you are not as cool as they are, and that their tolerance is better than your tolerance.